The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1887-07-08
A Fountain Pen DccIsion.

We take the following from the American
lSntioner Of June 30th in reference to n pre-
liminary injunction granted by the United
states Court to Paul e. Writ:
After several months of exhaustive re.
search in obtaining evidc nee as to fountain
pens, and after an argument Of three days
before Judge Benedict in the United States
Court for the Eastern District of New
York, the printed proofs and briefs were
handed up for the court to make its final
decision in case wherein Paul L. Writ,
proprietor and inventor of the Writ foun-
tain pen, sued an infringcr. Judgment
pro confesso has been taken by MIR. Writ
in instances where parties sought to in
fringe, and several preliminary injunctions
have been granted by the United States
Court in his favor. In one instance where
an injunction was granted in closing an
opinion the court said
at is quite clear however, that in the
defendants pen the ink is by his arrange
ment of feeders fed upon the pen from
above by capillary attraction, and also from
below. The plaintiffs combination will
make practical pen, fed only from above
by capillary attraction. 1t is a
combination adapted to produce a
certain result. The defendant uses
the same combination to produce the same
result and he has added a second COM
blnation which produces at the same time
a result differing from that produced by the
plaintiffs combination only in this, that il
feeds the pen from below 1t is true that
the defendant in using the plaintiffs com.
bination has shortened the shaft, but in the
added combination he has a shaft which
while it draws ink down to the lower side
of the pen, also draws ink to the shortened
upper shaft, whence it goes to the upper
side of the pen. This slight modification
affords no ground for the defendant to con
tend that he does not use the PLAINTIFF
. combination. The most that he can pre-
tend is that, while he uses the PLAINTIFF
{ combination to feed the upper side of the
t pen, he at the same time feeds the per
= from the under side by combination o
5 his own. In so doing, however, he in
: fringes upon the plaintiffs pattern; for HI
uses the combination described in the plain
: tiff's patent, namely, to feed the pen will
4 the ink drawn down to the nib upon tn
= upper side of the pen, by means of capil
s larry attraction. 1t seems to me that clea
6 case of infringement Of the plaintiffs pat
;. | ent is shown. Several patents were refer
: red to by the defendant to show the stat
5 OF the art, but l find nothing in these pat
r ents calculated to deprive the plaintiff Q
j. the right asserted in the patent sued on
The motion for injunction is granted"
The case just submitted in Brooklyn fo
final decision is of more than ordinary in
g terest, for strenuous efforts were made t
show that the Writ patent is of no const
quence, and that all sorts Of modification
" of Wirts invention ought to be allowe
the usual course taken by those VIII
have no rights of their own, but seek t
l. weaken or destroy the rights Of other
The decision quoted is to the effect this
e indiscriminate use cannot be made Of tn
ideas embraced in the Writ patent so as t
q run a fountain-pen business with a pc
which, in principle and operation, is ident
cal with Wirt's, or modified in some triflin
Y detail of construction.
g Several other suits are in progress, an
will be pushed, it is said, with the dete
:, mination to put an end TO the appropri
10 ton of Mr.. Wirts ideas in making and sci
, ing fountain pens.